[Corrected
version – Due to editing changes and restructuring prior to submission
the section on firearms laws was incorrect. Thanks to our well informed
readers for bringing this to my attention and it is corrected in this
version.]

I,
and many others, have written of the continual encroachment by the federal
government on the rights of the American citizen and with unconstitutional
expansion of government power. It has been so well documented that it
should be “settled law” that our central government is currently,
and for some time, operating outside its authority.

In
light of the awful financial mess our central government, perpetrated
by both parties, has placed us in; it may be prudent to know that our
founders warned us of exactly this when Thomas Jefferson said:

"We
must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must
make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.
If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in
our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our
amusements, for our callings and our creeds... private fortunes are
destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This
is the tendency of all human governments. A departure
from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a
third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons
of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...
And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt.
Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

Here
Thomas Jefferson is showing that governments, by their nature, will
become oppressive to the people. Power and human frailties will always,
eventually, devolve to despotism and tyranny against the very same people
that entrusted them with their lives and freedom.

George
Washington has been attributed, though not verified, as speaking on
the nature of government saying: "Government is not reason;
it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous
servant and a fearful master."

Government
is force! So when government collects taxes it does so by force. When
government dispenses welfare it does so by force. What – you say
-- Welfare by force? In response I say, absolutely; for government does
not give away anything that it has not taken from someone else. And
because government is force it must take by force from one who has earned
it in order to give to another who has not earned it.

So
how does this fit in with a discussion of the Second Amendment and military
grade firearms? It establishes the position of our current government
as moving toward being or becoming a tyrannical government that is antithetical
to the liberty of the people and thus leads us to the Second Amendment
discussion.

We
have seen a resurgence of support for the Second Amendment and in particular
the understanding that it is, and always has been, an individual right.
But what of Military grade weapons – and why is that important?
It is my contention, and many others, that the Second Amendment specifically
supports military grade weaponry as its target.

The
reasoning for inclusion of the Second Amendment was not to allow the
citizen to attend target shooting matches, or to go hunting, or just
to have a hobby – it was for protection against a tyrannical government.
How do we know that?

Many
who have studied our nation’s founding understand the increasing
tyranny of King George and the Crowns representatives in the colonies
in those early years. George Mason, during the Virginia Constitution
Convention, stated:

"When
the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great
Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was
governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that
it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they
should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink
gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now
of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say
who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table
gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist
of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."

The
British had learned that if you try to do too much too quickly the people
will resist and rise up against them. They knew they needed to do things
slowly, a little at a time, until it becomes too late and the people
will become enslaved.

Advertisement

Our
politicians, likewise, have learned from the past and it has become
quite apparent in what is known as our federal firearms laws.

The
history of Federal gun laws in America, in my opinion, has been one
of back door control. Knowing that the federal government does not have
jurisdiction over enforcing laws under which there is no grant of power
within the Constitution, the federal government falls back on taxation
and interstate commerce to control many areas under which they have
no jurisdiction. Federal gun laws are a prime example.

Since
we declared our independence from Great Britain up until 1934 (158 years)
there were no federal gun laws that operated within the states of the
Union (minus federal territory). In 1934 Congress passed the National
Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and was codified under Title 26 (Taxes).
In 1938 Congress then passed the Federal Firearms Act (FFA) that was
codified under Title 15 (Commerce and Trade). In 1986 the Republican
held Senate changed hands to a Democrat controlled Senate and three
far reaching gun control bills were passed; the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act (OCCA), the Gun Control Act (GCA), and the Firearm
Owners Protection Act (FOPA).

The
FFA from 1938 becomes somewhat of a mystery for those trying to follow
what the government is doing. Try as you might you will have to dig
to find much about it at all but it still can be found in the Statutes
at Large and the majority of its Title 15 language has been repealed
and placed in other acts passed later and transferred to Title 18 (Crimes
and Punishment).

The
OCCA was a broad bill which covered areas such as wire taps, Miranda
Warnings, as well as establishing the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
and prohibited the interstate trade of handguns and increased the minimum
buying age for handguns to 21 and the national gun licensing system.
This also greatly increased the incursion of federal mandates to local
law enforcement for the receipt of federal funds to state and local
law enforcement agencies. As funds were disbursed to the local law enforcement
agencies there were mandates that they enforce specific federal laws
which specifically dealt with target areas of federal interest. Because
the federal government cannot directly enforce the law outside its jurisdiction,
within the states, it can require states to enforce federal laws in
consideration of receipt of federal funds.

The
Next bill was the GCA, passed in 1968, that was codified under Title
18 (Crimes and Punishment). Now instead of operating under the guise
of interstate/foreign commerce and trade the federal government crosses
over to direct crime and punishment directly on the citizens of the
United States. This act was, and still is, of great controversy as an
example of government expansion into unconstitutional areas and usurpation
of states powers.

The
last bill I will talk about is the FOPA and though the leads one to
believe the act was designed to protect firearms owners’ rights
it did, by design, the exact opposite. Again codified under Title 18,
and expanding on the GCA, this bill granted the ATF greater latitude
in enforcing and regulating the firearms industry and in particular
the Federal Firearms License holders which has documented drastic increases
in allegations of abuse by ATF inspectors and a drastic decrease in
the number of FFL holders due to this abuse. In my opinion this was
by design to reduce the number of FFL holders within the public sector,
and it has worked.

Why
would the government switch the certain firearms code (FFA) from Title
15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty
years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding
what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could
act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was
within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade”.
However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot
enact laws on normal citizens who are not “acting in the trade.”
Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional
powers of commerce to an unconstitutional power, crime-fighting; which
is a state power.

Remember
George Mason’s statement above? -- “but that they should
not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”

There
are three primary reasons for the tax code. The first is the obvious
purpose of raising revenue for the operation of government. The second,
a little less obvious but as widely used, is to control behavior. Thirdly;
the tax code has been used to usurp power not otherwise given to the
federal government. To this third reason I will dedicate the majority
of the rest of this article.

We
are all aware of the use of the tax code to entice business and consumers
to do certain things. Examples of this are tax credits for certain home
improvements that conserve energy, or tax credits to purchase energy
efficient vehicles, or “cash for clunkers” to get older
cars off the road. Tax dollars are used to persuade farmers to not plant
certain crops or to entice them to plant other crops. This, in essence,
is the government manipulating corporations and the public with monetary
carrots to perform a certain way.

Advertisement

The
NFA however was a bit more insidious as it stated one purpose for its
existence and operated in a totally different manner. The original NFA
put a tax on the transfer of certain firearms and related items the
government wished to control under the guise of raising revenue. The
act focused on short rifles and sawed off shotguns that had the capability
of being concealed, machineguns and firearm silencers.

A
pivotal case in the advancement of federal control of firearms came
from a 1939 Supreme Court decision in the United States V. Miller case
that admitted the NFA was indeed a revenue raising act when it included
in the decision the wording of the act stating:

"Sec.
3. (a) There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon
firearms transferred in the continental United States a tax
at the rate of $200 for each firearm, such tax to be paid by
the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided
by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary; and the stamps
herein provided shall be affixed to the order for such firearm, here-in-after
provided for. The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to
any import duty imposed on such firearm.”

Obviously
the verbiage of the act specifically called for a tax, money to be paid
to the government, for the transfer of the items regulated under the
law mentioned above.

But
when we take a look at the “intended consequence” we have
to believe this act had more to do with control than with revenue. Shotguns
(sawed-off or otherwise) were much cheaper in 1938 than the $200.00
tax stamp and thus made this type of weapon out of reach of the common
man. A silencer during that time period cost anywhere from 5 to 25 dollars;
the result was a near collapse of that manufacturing sector nearly overnight.
Many urban shooting ranges required firearm silencers to control noise
in order to keep their ranges open and thus were forced to close as
fewer and fewer people could afford the silencer tax.

The
Miller case also focused on the whether the firearm was protected under
the Second Amendment. The government argued that:

“In
the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’
at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute
to the common defense.”

This
statement has two important points that need expounding upon. First;
the justice states that the firearm in question (short barreled shotgun)
is not “any part of the ordinary military equipment” and
therefore they “cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Therefore, according
to the Supreme Court, the only weapons guaranteed by the Second Amendment
would be weapons “of the ordinary military equipment or that its
use could contribute to the common defense.”

Secondly,
had anyone pointed out during trial, the short barreled shotgun was
used extensively in World War I as a trench gun (Winchester
M1897 with 20 inch barrel) and was a standard inventory firearm
of the US military.

Knowing
this information was readily available to the Supreme Court Justice,
and his staff, with nothing more than a simple phone call to any of
the Military Advisors in Washington, could lead one to believe that
the outcome of the case was determined to expand the powers of government
and to control the civilian population and not correct constitutional
interpretation.

Now,
if indeed the Justice was correct in determining that only firearms
of military type are protected by the Second Amendment then how does
the federal government reconcile the assault weapons ban of exactly
that type of firearm? It cannot because the government, in collusion
with the Judiciary, is working to remove the rights of defense from
the American people.

But
the militia and the place of arms within our free society was known
from the very beginning of our great nation. Tench Coxe wrote in the
February 20, 1788 edition of the Pennsylvania Gazette the following:

"Who
are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we
shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no
power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible
implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal
or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,
in the hands of the people."

Representative
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said that “Whenever governments
mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt
to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

It
is specifically because the people are armed that we have not seen greater
degrees of oppression. It is because the American people maintain the
unique ability to resist government’s usurpation of power that
it must be measured in very slow increments, lest the people rise up.

Thomas
Jefferson was attributed as saying:

"...
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which
is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the
facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And
what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts,
pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or
two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the
blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

The
idea of arms in the hands of the people was to be able to resist government
tyranny and to have the means to correct it. The Second Amendment guarantees
every man the right to arms for the purpose of war against any that
would defile that liberty.

The
military grade weapon is the exact weapon the Second Amendment guarantees.
Not to hunt deer and pheasant but to hunt those that would threaten
liberty. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that fact in Miller and
of late in the Heller case that it is an individual right. That means
every law abiding citizen has not only the right but the duty to be
armed with military grade weapons and proficient in the use and deployment
of those weapons.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

For
those who are too cowardly to learn the art of the firearm, to those
who cower at the thought of defense of Liberty and freedom, to those
who think more of greed and personal pleasure than to right and justice
I leave you with the words of Samuel Adams:

"If
you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask
not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds
you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget
that you were our countrymen."

Michael
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He
served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard)
and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified
paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in
the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member.
He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple
Heart for injuries received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically
discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently
works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael
is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution
by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led
him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution
is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America
today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind
and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government
have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution
and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second
Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was
an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now
has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect
of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around
the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited
(for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea,
Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines,
England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael
now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law
and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing,
amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

For those who are
too cowardly to learn the art of the firearm, to those who cower at the
thought of defense of Liberty and freedom, to those who think more of
greed and personal pleasure than to right and justice I leave you with
the words of Samuel Adams...